I often see Rust mentioned at the same time as MIT-type licenses.

Is it just a cultural thing that people who write Rust dislike Libre copyleft licenses? Or is it baked in to the language somehow?

Edit: It has been pointed out that I meant to say “copyleft”, not “libre”, so edited the title and body likewise.

  • wer2@lemm.ee
    4·
    5 days ago

    To add a couple of issues with Dynamic Libraries, and why someone would choose Static Libraries:

    • The dynamic library being updated can break a program due to a change in the library. Think a math call goes from divide(a,b) to divide(a,b, precision), so now the old call doesn’t exist.
    • Some languages don’t have a “stable” way to talk to itself. This means that if you have a program and library compiled with compiler version A, then later compile an update to the library with compiler version B, the program won’t know how to talk to the library correctly, even though the call is still there.

    Like a lot of things, there are tradeoffs, and there is no universal correct choice.

    • Hugin@lemmy.world
      4·
      5 days ago

      Agreed. I wasn’t trying to say they are always better just explain the difference.

      I almost exclusivity use Linux and it handles this great. .so libraries are stored with a version number and a link to the latest. So math3.so and math4.so with math.so being a link to math4.so. that way if needed I can set a program to use math3.so and keep everything else on the latest version.